Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Thirding that request and giving it the mod stamp of approval.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I am going to assume that includes quotes from other works.
Anyway, it looks like the GOP is gonna start things off this year with getting started on repealing the ACA.
And on a related note, is Trump really planning on privatizing parts of the VA? Even after being told not to by a bunch of veterans? If so...can't say I'm surprised.
edited 4th Jan '17 12:48:06 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedEh, I'd say the problem with terms like "progressive" and "conservative" is that ideas tend to be Older Than They Think. On the flip side, everything was new at some point.
Leviticus 19:34In general I tend to dislike political and social labels to a certain extent, or at least the frustrating way most people apply them. I feel it leads people to consider ideas and stances by association rather than actual merit, and it leads to people making assumptions about what others believe or do without hearing their actual ideas first. It lets them create a strawman in their mind about that group that may not even necessarily be accurate to most of them, and it's a bad habit that transcends political affiliation.
For example, evolution is not a "leftist" idea that can be summarily dismissed based on your political beliefs, it's gonna be here whether you like it or not.
edited 4th Jan '17 1:10:37 PM by Draghinazzo
With the "Trump is bipolar" argument, I find it far more believable that it's a matter of who has possession of the device - Trump himself, or one of his aides. I seem to recall reading (probably at Cracked) that most of the batshit insane ones (and thus most likely Trump) came from one, while the more measured reactions came from the other, which has the hallmarks of a PR team having editing power on what actually comes out of Trump's brain, because God knows his mouth doesn't.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"Armchair diagnosis of mental illness is fraught with all kinds of dangers and liabilities. Never mind that I've engaged in it myself; unless Trump seeks out or obtains a professional diagnosis, it's better to focus on what he's saying and doing then what may be going on inside that shriveled husk of a soul.
edited 4th Jan '17 1:48:45 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It might be a good idea to have a full psychiatric evaluation before someone can become president. It isn't relevant just with Trump, Reagan had Alzheimer's, and the warning signs may have been there when he was first elected.
Even if it doesn't stop the person from being elected, it could let people know about any potential future landmines.
Like with Trump. It is likely that he has some form of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, if only because he adheres disturbingly close to the textbook standard symptoms all the time. (Yes, I know, armchair diagnosis) The problem is that if anything gets through to someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder and punctures the bubble they've built around themselves, it can be extremely bad for everyone.
Problem is that whoever does the examination has the power to stop anyone from becoming president, not to mention whoever sets up the standard for "mentally sound". Not to mention that, given a properly motivated psychiatrist, pretty much everyone shows symptoms of something.
It's one of those things that sounds like a good idea, but is just going to get abused.
![]()
Exactly. "Sorry Obama, but you've been diagnosed with being black."
edited 4th Jan '17 2:33:50 PM by kkhohoho
Yeah, and there's always the problem of a demagogue "biased psychiatrists won't let me run because they know I can win fuck the experts I'm great and I will make america great again with my greatness because I have the best people and the best word and the best brain make america great again the totally biased psychiatrists say I'm a megalomaniac but we all know that's bullshit, no folks?!"
But I've always fantasized about constitutionally mandating that any politician running for an executive position can not be a megalomaniac.
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KVI suspect you'd have a lot less people running, if any at all. It takes a special kind of person to look at the responsibilities that comes with leading a large and powerful nation and say "Yeah, I can handle that".
edited 4th Jan '17 3:13:37 PM by Kayeka
WSJ: Donald Trump Plans Revamp of Top U.S. Spy Agency (CIA, National Intelligence)
So...a purge?
New Survey coming this weekend!Before quoting the WSJ, remember that it is a right-wing propaganda tool.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I'll second the request to knock it off with all the Metal Gear Rising and Hamilton quotes. We get it, there are parallels. Enough already.
It's been fun.